RobP,
>>We could go on and on<<
Here I completely agree with you. The only reason I re-entered the debate was your presentation of your own position as a "fair summary" of the debate. I think a fairer summary would be that the majority of respondents agreed with you.

This is not surprising. It is always easier to criticise and attack (for understandable, as well as ideologically preconceived, reasons) demanding wide ranging reforms (that in fact would bring down an existing, albeit with faults, system, whether that was the intention of attackers or not) than to look patiently for a constructive - compassionate but fair to the victims as well as to the innocent vast majority of members of the Church, clergy or not - solution within the two millennia old system. As mjpb rightfully remarks, the only perfect solution would be to undo the past.

mjpb and George,

"...only changing the past would fix the problem"

I think this is rather defeatist. What's wrong with the idea of healing the wounds of the past by fixing the future? In other words, from now on we face up to problems and deal with them as soon as they come up?

RobP,

We aren't throwing up our hands and being defeatist.

(cutting and pasting and tweaking a previous comment)

Actions have been taken which have clearly dramatically reduced the incidence of abuse and programs have been introduced to assist victims. The Towards Healing program apparently includes an independent investigation, apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling. Apparently Pell has come up with something considered better by a victims organisation. Personally I think I would struggle to do so. Perhaps more ideas will come forward (I believe Stickey has some) and the current approach will be improved but even if that happens it won't change the past and all we are saying is that the fact this happened will remain a tragedy and it will remain a problem in many ways. Does putting it that way make it any clearer?

mjpb: "Does putting it that way make it any clearer?"

No!

Are you saying what happened to people who were raped by priests, nuns and brothers should be ruled off because that was the past? And we can't change the past?

So there should be no redress? No apology? No accountability? No listening to the voices of the victims? No feelings of having been betrayed? No review of the circumstances that gave rise to these crimes?

We'll just wait until the next victims blow the whistle? And then insult them for having the nerve to feel abandoned? Is that what you're saying?

mjpb,

You sound just like a politician. And you have about as much grasp of the problem as the pollies do. Sod all.

On this issue the Church is an utter dead weight, a complete hypocrite. It reminds me of my uncle and his wife. All they ever do is sit around at home, read the Bible and evangalise "the Lord will provide" whenever something goes their way. But, all it actually is is a cover for their indolence. When I visited them as a kid, I felt it was the deadest place ever. No colour, no activity, no kids running around, nothing. They bought their mother's house and have never bought their own, even though they are nearing 80.

While they are actually harmless, their list of little hypocrisies is endless. They will always opt out of exerting themselves if they have a choice. This is exactly the type of people the Church snaffles in order to bump up its flock. Is it any wonder they haven't got the intestinal fortitude to face up to some difficult issues?

RobP,

To avoid being a dead weight and a total hypocrite what should the Church do besides an apology from the international leading authority in the Church for the wrongs of the past, taking actions which have clearly dramatically reduced the incidence of abuse and introducing programs to assist victims being primarily The Towards Healing program which apparently includes an independent investigation, apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling.

I'm not trying to be like a politician with sod all understanding but you will need to be more specific about what you want the Church to do to stop being judged by you as a hypocritical dead weight or I will remain in your eyes as having sod all understanding.

I'll put it another way in case it is a communication issue. If someone gets hurt by someone in an organisation the possible actions by the organisation (if the problem concerns them) is to do what they can to prevent reoccurance, ensure transparency through independent investigation, compensate victims, compassionately manage the human aspects through apology and counselling, and take responsibility through an apology from the top. That is what has been done here (as close to the top as you can practically get it anyway). However given the gravity of some of the actions of the representatives I nevertheless don't believe that will make everything perfect for the victims.

Spikey,

"Are you saying what happened to people who were raped by priests, nuns and brothers should be ruled off because that was the past?"

No I'm saying that the unique exertions expended in dealing with the problem (which were fitting given the nature of the organisation) won't change the past. Unless the past is changed there will still be victims. I consider it appropriate that so much work has been done on the problem but no matter what is done it won't erase the past.

I'm trying to explain to RobP why I said that the only thing that would completely solve the problem is to erase the past. He thought George and I were being defeatist by making that comment.